Seller apparently doesn't own their garden any more...

[Darkerdowndays]

We viewed and made an offer on a house a few months ago, and at the time the seller casually mentioned that only half of the garden was actually on the house deeds, but that it did belong to the house and they'd had exclusive use for 20 years, were happy to provide evidence so we could get it added to the deeds, etc.

Our solicitor has now asked the seller for details and they've completely changed their story, claiming they've actually only maintained that land as part of his job, and that it's belonged to a local trust the whole time I'm gutted and incredibly frustrated; a decent garden is a big deal for me, and I don't know if we'd have made an offer without it. But the market round us seems to be absolute rubbish at the moment, there's literally nothing else we like within our budget. Not sure if we should pull out and stay in our current house (and let our poor buyers down), or let the cheeky buggers get away with the lie and proceed with the purchase, both feel like rubbish options at the minute.

Agree with many PP, renegotiate price on the basis it was false information or walk away.

OP, as infuriating as it is, ignore the seller.

Would you have considered the house with the actual legal garden?
If you don't own something, the owner could decide to fence, build something on it. Would you consider the house then?

If so, you can only ask for price reduction, or try to get the seller to sort it out, but it might take ages, you risk losing your buyers too.

Just think that it's a (small) blessing you discovered that BEFORE buying!

Do you need a mortgage to buy? If so, you need to check with your solicitor whether the mortgage company might refuse to lend you all the money on the basis that the property is worth less with less land.

Yep.
Your feelings on the matter are largely irrelevant if you are getting a mortgage. You need to know your lender is happy with what is being conveyed in the title document before making a decision.

I think it’s relevant that the seller maintained it as part of their job - it could impact a claim for ownership based on long use. What does your solicitor say ?

@DryRoastPeanut

I’d walk away. This smells like the start of one of those “My nightmare home” programmes on channel 5.

I agree with this. Stay in your current home and just keep looking.

Right of adverse possession does not exist if the user has acknowledged the owners’ right to possession/ownership.
The very fact seller had mentioned the issue demonstrates he was intent on defrauding you.
Would the parcel of land be any use to the trust ie is there access without crossing the land belonging to the house? Is it big enough to build on? I don’t think Id risk negotiation with the trust unless the land would be useless to anyone else.

Thanks for all the replies, given us a lot to think about! Will try to answer all the questions (sorry if I miss any!).

We wouldn't be left with no garden in this situation, the garden that is actually on the deeds is about the same size as the house itself...but the bit we would lose is double that size, so it's a bit gutting.

It is complicated by the fact the seller works for the trust; can't tell if they haven't gone for possession because he works for them, or if they've only even been allowed use because he works for them! Either way the solicitor said the trust require access (power and water go under the land). We were probably naive to think it would be as simple as they promised though! The agent knew we wanted that land made legally part of the house as the offer was conditional on it, but with hindsight maybe they thought it was some weird fantasy we'd dreamed up ourselves??

We do still like the property with less land, but it was a big selling point; the house needs some work and the location isn't ideal, and it now means we'd be stuck with a smaller garden than we've currently got!

Current thinking has me torn between trying to get in touch with the trust and at least discuss the possibility of us buying or using the land, and just walking away and seeing what else crops up. We're not tied to moving, it was mostly for the more rural setting and an easier commute, but our current house is basically fine. Just gutting we've found this out after setting our hearts on a place (and spending time and money getting to this stage)!

I would pull out. Immediately.

If the garden was a simple, straightforward purchase from the Trust, the owners would have done so. Especially after discovering how hard it is to now sell their home without owning it. 6 months on the market you say?

They know. and it's not straightforward, simple or affordable.

If you really want the house, tell them they'll have to acquire ownership of the whole garden first.

But that's unlikely to happen anytime soon else it would have been done.

And thank you to everyone who has mentioned the possibility of the trust building on the land; I hadn't considered it, but it would be a massive downside for us (the lack of neighbours is a massive bonus at the minute!)

one word. RUN!!

I'd pull out. The seller and estate agent fibbed or were very economical with the trust so how can you trust anything they have told you?
Also, maybe it was in your budget BECAUSE it didn't have a garden.
Unless there is already an arrangement in place to buy the garden from the trust I would work on the assumption that you will not buy it, because you don't know whether the trust will sell it.

You can get indemnities for situations where land and rights of way are being used without actually being owned by the homeowner but the fact that the current owners have only used this land due to their job makes me think that this won't be possible. Sounds very complicated in the circumstances you describe.
Also I assume the house was valued taken into account the garden a whole. If you do proceed you need to renegotiate a price based up the garden having halved in size.
In my experience your solicitor won't let you proceed unless everything is sorted so definitely follow their advice.

I really don’t think you should purchase this property. If you do buy it, you will regret it. As hard as it is, there will be be another property better for you.

The fact it’s owned by a trust makes things more complicated as what can be done with it or not is governed not by reasonable argument but by a trust deed. Vendor’s access as part of their job is also massively relevant and I suspect would make any claim for adverse possession fail. Given the really quirky situation on this, I’d walk (& I’ve bought with statutory declarations as to use of land plus indemnity insurance before).
I do think it’s worth a look at the estate agent because it absolutist their responsibility at law to accurately describe the property. They in turn have a warranty from the property owner, so gather all the particulars to look at representations of the garden. Your conveyancer can advise of you have a claim for your losses (their fees and seRches/ survey) if it’s been misdescribed. It will then fall on the vendor who has clearly misled people to cover the agent’s loss to you.

It might be worth contacting the trust before you decide, just so you know if there might be a possibility of buying the land from them. Then you can offer to the house seller to reduce the price you pay them by that amount (plus fees?). But only proceed if you can buy both at the same time.

Or withdraw and look elsewhere.

Pull out! A garden which now turns out to be a third? of the size that you thought you were making an offer for. I wouldn’t want it anymore even with a reduction in price. You can make your offer contingent in them sorting out the issue (they won’t!)

Personally, I would go through with the sale of your current house and rent for the next year and take your time. Hassle but prices will generally go one way in your favour now.

Take the emotion out of it. Yes sellers were cheeky buggers and yes you have buyers you don’t want to let down - but set that aside.

Look at the house now without the additional land. Do you want to live there and is it worth the price you offered?

Don’t have a knee jerk reaction to this. Think it through carefully.

If the sellers have lied about this, what else might they lie about? I would walk away.

One major lie/ deception is a warning of more to come. I'd instruct my lawyer to contact theirs in writing, formally pull out of the purchase and tell their lawyer why. His clients have been caught in a serious deception about land ownership.

 That  their deception is now out in the open and known to their lawyer changes his position. He will protect his professional standing,   making it very hard for his clients to pull their grubby stunt on anybody else. So now their house is harder to sell AND they face a substantial  price cut (smaller garden).  Could mess up their onward  chain. Shame.

We had this where the seller had actually decided to sell off half the garden separately but hadn't told us until after we'd had an offer accepted on the house. We reluctantly pulled out but I think we made the right decision.

Basically, you've been lied to from here to eternity; for that reason alone I'd walk away since there's probably a lot more you don't yet know about house-condition wise

Thank god for once for solicitors who are paid to pick up exactly this sort of thing. PPs have covered it all, especially that this would have been sorted already if it was easy to do, but frankly I can't think of a single reason you'd go ahead with this ... something previous viewers have probably twigged themselves

I do think it’s worth a look at the estate agent because it absolutist their responsibility at law to accurately describe the property

Maybe, but that little phrase about "EA particulars forming no part of a contract" is there for a reason, so I wouldn't hold out any hope there

Anyway there already seem enough legal problems here without taking on the EAs as well, much as they might deserve it

If he has maintained the propert as part of his employment, that means he had the permission of the owner so you can probably forget adverse possession.

There are therefore two things to consider:

1. Are you willing to buy with the smaller garden?
2. Are you happy to live next door to a building site / another house?

From what you say, the total area of the land is 4X with you finding out you would only be purchasing 2X (house and garden the same size as the house). That means there is a significant likelihood that planning permission could be obtained for another property (since it would have the same footprint as yours), particularly as planning permission rules have recently been relaxed.

I would walk away unless he buys the land and includes it but it’s a matter of what you would be happy living with.

property

There is seriously no way I would go ahead with this purchase .